The Use of Reason is a blog that takes a common sense view of society and its problems. I try to look at things not from the standpoint of whether the issue has an R or a D next to it, but instead from the perspective of a rational human being trying to solve problems. Oddly enough, the common sense, practical perspective usually ends up being the conservative one. If you'd like a sane, average-Joe's point of view, check out the blog.

Follow by Email

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

As the Republican primary winds to a close, let me get something off my chest. As a Mormon, I'm very proud of my party right now. We've proved that we are not a bunch of intolerant hicks, that Evangelical Christians may not see eye to eye with all of Mormon doctrine but can think beyond those differences when electing a president. I am very encouraged for the future of conservatism right now. I am even more encouraged for the future of the religious Right. We may just be able to stop fighting among ourselves and turn that energy into something beneficial to society. We are on the verge of uniting against those who threaten all of our right to worship Jesus Christ openly and in public. We may just turn the tide.

We know from the story of the prophet Daniel in the Bible that the enemies of faith will gladly ban the worship of God in public. This is nothing new historically. The Romans did it, the Babylonians did it, and the Left has been doing it now for years. If we, as Christians, allow ourselves to waste energy attacking each other, we will never have the resources necessary to overcome the secular-minded world. At this point, all God-fearing men and women need to stop picking each other apart and instead stand up for their right to worship. The election of Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee is a huge leap in that direction.

However, for those of you who may have questions about just what differentiates Mormon Christianity from other branches, let me offer a few points of clarification.

1. Mormons do not accept the doctrine that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are one being. We believe that they are three divine beings who are united in purpose. All power emanates from the Father, who has granted it to Christ as His emissary. Christ represents the Father here on earth and is the intermediary between Man and the Father. All salvation comes through a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ, whose sacrifice enables the reunion of fallen mankind with God the Father. The Holy Ghost serves as a comforter and revealer of truth on an individual basis. We believe Jesus Christ ascended bodily into Heaven and retains that glorified body today.

2. Mormons accept the Bible as the revealed word of God, but understand (as all modern Bible scholars do) that the translations we have today are imperfect and thus may be easily interpreted to suit the predispositions of those who preach from them. For example, in what is considered mainstream Christianity there is a lot of disagreement about what precisely one must do to be saved. Some argue that a verbal confession of faith is sufficient while others argue that salvation is predestined and thus any effort toward it would be futile. As for those who hold that baptism is essential to salvation, some argue that a sprinkling of water on the head constitutes baptism while others maintain that only complete immersion is acceptable. Thus, even the requirements for salvation vary depending on how one interprets the Bible. This does not diminish the importance of the Bible, but simply makes it clear that there is a need for clarification.

3. Mormons believe that as part of God's effort to clarify His intent, He has called prophets in modern times and revealed His word through them. The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price are three examples of modern revelation Mormons consider to be equally as important as the Bible. While such a thought might seem blasphemy to some, the same dilemma occurred at the addition of the New Testament to the canon of holy scripture. However, if it is true that God still reveals His will to men today, the written account of that communication would indeed be the word of God and thus scripture.

4. Mormons believe that God will have work for us to do in Heaven. The exact type of work will depend upon our own nature as spiritual beings, which we are learning and shaping during mortality. Some will be engaged in extending God's creation, while others will serve as angelic messengers. Whatever the case, our eternal destiny will not be to sit around chatting idly. The work of creation is infinite and we will assist in various ways depending on our faithfulness and obedience.

There are other doctrinal differences, but these are no more distinct than those that exist between most Christian denominations. If a Lutheran, a Calvinist, a Baptist and a Non-denominational Christian can all accept each other's Christian credentials, there should be no problem accepting Mormons into the fold.

As for Mormons, we accept the honest efforts of our fellow Christians to become closer to God (an aspiration we all share) and wish them the best. When people ask what Mormons believe, I often reply, "We believe everything you do about Jesus, and then some."

I hope there is no one who will take offense from the above doctrinal points. You don't have to agree with all of them; this is America and, thank the Lord, we are free to believe and worship as we choose. As Christians, it is imperative that we unite and fight to keep that freedom.

A few good resources to clarify Mormon doctrines are the following:JeffLindsay.com

Thursday, May 24, 2012

One of the things I like most about Mitt Romney is his ability to think "outside of the box." It is therefore especially disappointing to see him advocating the same, tired education reform ideas that have been killing public education (and student outcomes) in this country for over a decade. I realize that there is a very rich and powerful pro-voucher lobby supported by, among others, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation. I realize that tapping into such funds for campaign contributions seems like a good idea, though it's clear from his book No Apology that Romney has advocated this position for quite some time. However, the real issue is never addressed because it is even more controversial than reconsidering Medicare and Social Security funding. The real issue lies with students themselves.

We have simply stopped holding students accountable for the results of their own efforts and behavior. At the middle school at which I am employed, a student may fail all of his or her courses and still be promoted from grade to grade, even to high school. Only recently has the State of Indiana begun to enforce even a small amount of student accountability, which is merely making students who do not demonstrate adequate reading proficiency in third grade remain grouped with third graders the next school year for reading. They are still promoted and will rejoin their same-age peers regardless of success the next school year.

What is even more interesting is the lack of superior results demonstrated by charter schools. Charter schools are a fairly small minority of the total number of schools in the state of Indiana. Nevertheless, half of the ten lowest performing schools on the IREAD-3 test (the third grade reading exam) are charter schools. On the ISTEP+ test (Indiana's primary measure of school accountability), charter schools consistently crowd the bottom of the list. Given the evidence that charter schools perform no better than public ones, and in fact most often worse, why then does Governor Mitch Daniels insist in hailing charters are panaceas? Why does Mitt Romney hop on this bandwagon? The evidence in raw data confirms that charter schools, which pay less, offer no teacher protections, and are not required to hire licensed teachers, are simply less effective. If state test scores are indeed the Holy Grail of measuring achievement, why are our leaders ignoring them?

*Sigh.* Mitt, I'm still going to vote for you. On this issue Democrats (and especially President Obama) propose the same exact set of solutions. I suppose the issue of education reform is candidate-neutral. Why is it that every time there is bipartisan agreement it is on a terrible idea? Me, I'll stick with bitter partisan feuds. They at least have some hope of offering up a good idea or two.

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

There is a lot of noise being made about whether President Obama should dump Vice President Biden and add Hillary to the ticket. It would be an unprecedented move. Just the fact that it is up for discussion reveals the desperation of the Democrat camp right now. However, I doubt it would be good for Obama. Here's why:

1. It makes Obama look desperate. It would be the same sort of move that adding Sarah Palin was for McCain. I'm not criticizing Sarah Palin, God bless her, but let's face it, adding a pretty and inexperienced female to the ticket was a move designed for aesthetic purposes. She was young and energetic; McCain was old and tired. She overshadowed her running mate and may have lost him the election.

2. The Clinton name comes with heavy negatives. While hardcore liberals would be practically orgasmic over an Obama-Clinton ticket, the rest of America would groan. Nobody thinks of the Clinton name without images of a stained dress creeping into their heads. Plus, the possibility of Bill causing yet another scandal by lewd behavior while living in the White House is too great. The last thing President Obama needs is for his presidency to be marred by something the Vice President's husband did with someone on the White House custodial staff.

3. Hillary is not the manse type. A Vice President has to bow to the views and policies endorsed by the President. It's clear from listening to Bill on the campaign trail that he and Hillary disagree with much of Obama's message. Biden made a slip about gay marriage. Hillary could possibly let it slip that she disagrees with the efficacy of confiscatory taxes. The potential to be contradicted by a bold New Democrat is huge.

4. Hillary would likely decline the invitation. She intends to run in 2016, I am quite sure. She does not want to share a ticket with a man who will likely lose the election, nor does she want to associate her name with someone whose policies have been so disastrous for the nation. That would be political suicide, and the Clintons are well known for their political savvy. It's a move Hillary is just too astute to make. The rumor would emerge that Hillary had declined (if two or more people know something, it's not a secret for long), and it would make Obama look like an even bigger loser.

I do not think President Obama will ask Hillary Clinton to be his running mate. I don't think even he would be that foolhardy. Even if he himself isn't astute enough to realize that it would be a mistake, I'm sure someone on his staff would warn him. If he asks her and she accepts I will be amazed. I would love to see the debates. Romney would eat Obama alive on the economy, and an articulate Republican running mate would do the same to Hillary. At the very least it would lead to her contradicting Obama, which would be a huge problem for the Democrats. While I'd love to see Obama shoot himself in the foot, I doubt it will happen.

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Any regular listener to talk show host Michael Savage will recognize the words, "Diversity is perversity." I don't claim to have created the phrase, but it is becoming more and more true. President Obama's recent pronouncement regarding gay marriage is a perfect example. While I realize that a slippery slope argument is considered a logical fallacy, the trend in society is quite obvious. Society is changing incrementally, and the change is not one toward Judeo-Christian values.

Racial and ethnic diversity is a fact of life, and as such is value-neutral. It strikes me as odd when people use trite language such as, "Celebrate diversity!" Diversity is neither to be celebrated nor denigrated. It simply is. In the modern era, one must be able to navigate potential landmines associated with diversity while at the same time using it to one's advantage. For example, when speaking to someone with a Spanish accent I often slip into Spanish myself. This is pleasing to the listener and reinforces the idea that we have something in common. I do the same thing when speaking with Muslims or people from northern India. I throw in common phrases I have learned and enjoy the smiles. It is a way to make a positive impression and also an enjoyable experience.

Nothing expresses the promise of American freedom like the swearing in of new citizens...

However, the term diversity has become so all-inclusive that it now includes things that, only a few decades ago, would have been abhorrent. The acceptance of homosexuality as a valid lifestyle choice is one of those things, as are out-of-wedlock birth, promiscuity, welfare as a way of life, and blatant attacks on (Bible-based) religion. It is one thing to suggest that certain behaviors or beliefs should be tolerated. The word tolerate means to put up with, so this simply means that while you may not like it, you recognize that everyone has the freedom to act as they wish so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.

However, under the guise of tolerance we are being asked to accept and legally recognize homosexuality as being equal to the relationship between man and wife. Logic itself dictates that the two things are different. The relationship that exists in a marriage is intrinsically valuable, not just to those directly involved but to society as a whole. Without heterosexual relations between men and women, the species would cease to exist. Marriage as an institution predates the government of the United States. Our government does not grant marriages but simply recognizes the institution as binding and legal. Homosexuality is not necessary nor does it accomplish any good to society as a whole. The government has no interest in recognizing such relationships because they do not create offspring. Their stability has nothing to do with the stability of society, whereas marriage (in the eons-old sense) is a stabilizing factor. The decline of lifelong marriages has contributed to the decline of society in a very real sense. The government ought to do all it can to encourage marriage between men and women and discourage reproduction outside of that framework.

The Judeo-Christian scriptures are replete with admonitions against homosexuality. They exist for good reason and should not be ignored. From both a logical and religious perspective, the push to diversify the definition of marriage is a bad idea. It will inevitably devalue the marriage covenant, a covenant which has already been hit hard enough by the increasingly self-centered culture we have created in the past half-century. Let us not deliver the final death blow.

Diversity has contributed much to our culture. I cannot imagine life without Mexican or Chinese food. I was raised in the midst of a largely Hispanic culture. There is much to be learned and gained from other cultures. However, lowering our moral standards is never a good idea, even in the name of diversity. We are already suffering the consequences enough as it is.

Just as a frame of reference, the following graph should be useful.

Government has enabled this trend by replacing fathers as the default breadwinner. The responsibility to care for one's offspring financially was a huge motivator for childbearing couples to marry. We have eliminated this positive pressure. Moreover, women need not rely on men's incomes if the government will supply their wants and needs. This allows many to simply leave a relationship because it is convenient. Boredom has become an acceptable reason for divorce.

All of this we are asked to accept in the cherished name of diversity. Diverse types of families, sexual relationships, and moral codes are to be not only tolerated but celebrated. As a Mormon, Romney is already the target of animus due to his church's opposition to gay marriage and its efforts against it, particularly in California. As Christians, are they not obliged to make that stand? I, for one, am glad that at least somebody is doing so.

Friday, May 11, 2012

If you haven't been living under a rock for the last week, you know that Obama has finally come out of the closet as being in favor of "gay marriage." Let's put aside for the moment the fact that "gay marriage" is a contradiction in terms. What President Obama and his people are doing is exactly what Romney needs them to do. They are widening the perceptual gap between themselves and Romney.

Mitt Romney suffers from having proposed a health care plan for Massachusetts that bears a vague resemblance to Obama's. Massachusetts' state plan used federal funds (which were coming whether the state asked or not) to defray the cost of private health insurance rather than sending it to hospitals as a supplement for those who couldn't pay. Essentially, the same money was being used for the same purpose, only more efficiently. The private sector was the solution in this plan, not the problem. In Romney's proposal, nobody received free health insurance. A government option did not exist. Those who could afford health insurance but chose not to purchase any would lose the tax exemption associated with having purchased health care. In concept it was the equivalent of a mortgage exception--you aren't being penalized for not having a mortgage, but rewarded for making the investment. He even vetoed all of the clauses in the insurance bill that would make it remotely comparable to Obamacare. For example, he vetoed a clause that would require employers of eleven or more people to provide insurance or pay a fee and another that provided coverage for immigrants who would be ineligible under Medicaid. Unfortunately, all of Romney's eight vetoes were overridden by the Massachusetts legislature. For this reason, Romney's opponents often apply the term Romneycare to parts of the law that he did not propose and, in fact, vetoed. This is either disingenuous or starkly ignorant.

This is really the only similarity between Romney and Obama and is demonstrably a false canard. Romney's challenge is to demonstrate that there is a vast difference between himself and Obama on social, fiscal, and foreign policy. Thankfully, President Obama seems more than willing to oblige. Having eliminated Don't Ask, Don't Tell and come out for "gay marriage," Obama is revealing his true colors (red) on social issues just as he already has on economics.

Thanks you, President Obama. If you lose this fall, perhaps the Republicans can use you as a campaign adviser. You've certainly done a lot for their P.R. thus far.

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

As a classroom teacher in the state of Indiana, I have often seen the power of media and popular culture to influence the thoughts of the young on social issues. In no way is this more true than in the case of Trayvon Martin. I have many African American students, and nearly all of them hold the strong opinion that Trayvon was murdered in cold blood by a racist white man who decided to kill him when first he glanced a black boy daring to take a stroll in his neighborhood. When the subject comes up (usually as students start to walk into class before the bell rings), I'll often just say, "Let's not judge anyone before the facts are all out."

This elicits a reaction, often vitriolic, of disgust. "Of course it was racism! Like anybody really thinks it wasn't! Zimmerman was white, Trayvon was black, and Zimmerman followed and killed him because he was black. Stop pretending something else happened! We all know what it really was."

This sort of animus is quite useful to certain people. The media feed off the interest in the story like sharks in bloody water. They exaggerate the story, even stooping to editing audio to create a false impression. They publish old, outdated photos of both parties to the tragedy in an effort to sensationalize the event.

Witness these images of Martin and Zimmerman.

Most widely published photos:

More up to date photos, starting with Trayvon (from his Twitter account):

And George Zimmerman (in a non-mugshot photo):

Now granted, the more recent photos are just as biased as the old ones being shown, what with Trayvon shirtless flipping the bird and Zimmerman smiling in a suit. Still, the age and build of the second set of photos does at least display that George Zimmerman might well have been physically afraid for his life in a physical confrontation with a large tattooed seventeen-year-old. What the more recent photos don't do is give the impression of Trayvon as an angelic eleven-year-old hunted down like a dog by a larger, armed adult.

Now, I don't claim to know exactly what happened. Personally, I think Zimmerman got carried away in his role as neighborhood watch captain (you don't need a gun to keep an eye on the neighborhood), followed Trayvon around until Trayvon became irate, and Trayvon lashed out in anger. He probably felt singled out, and perhaps he was. I don't believe there was a racial motive since several black families resided in the neighborhood in question, but it's evident that Zimmerman was angry at the break-ins and determined to find a culprit. If he was as involved in his community as it seems, he might have simply followed Trayvon because he didn't recognize him. Still, from the wounds on Zimmerman's head he was taking quite the beating. Most likely he panicked and used his gun in what he considered to be self-defense. Was it overkill? Certainly. In my opinion, George Zimmerman is at the very least guilty of manslaughter. However, these are opinions. I have no idea what happened, nor does anyone else outside of George Zimmerman and perhaps the police who responded to the incident.

What upsets me is the way young people, especially young people of color, are being militarized by the event so as to cause a degree of racial hatred not seen for a very long time. It reminds me of the six-second (or so) clip shown relentlessly on the news during the Rodney King trial. According to the jurors, the full video of the incident told quite a different story than did the few seconds shown on television. Still, that fact did not sway the emotions of those who engaged in wanton violence and criminality, which they justified as a reaction to the verdict.

I don't think George Zimmerman can be convicted on a second degree murder charge. To qualify as second degree murder in the State of Florida, the killer must be determined to have shown a depraved mind with no regard for human life. Zimmerman has shown contrition. How can the state prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is mentally depraved to the point that human life means nothing to him? No, I think perhaps that he was charged with a crime that the prosecution knew had no hope of conviction. It was a way out. The district attorney can claim she was tough on the suspect, but that the system made the decision. It's likely that she believes he did indeed act in self-defense, and so raised the burden of proof well beyond what could possibly result in a conviction.

With emotions raging so bitterly, violence may well erupt if and when a Not Guilty verdict is read. I hope it doesn't. I hope the African American community can stop providing justification for racist stereotypes. I understand the anger. The death of a young man, despite whatever "tough guy" public persona he may have had, is tragic. Let's not allow this tragedy to tarnish the image of the African American community. That would be an even greater tragedy.

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

I recently read a list of conservative vocabulary words on some obscure and unreadable website (not that I can talk, at least as far as obscurity goes). I decided I'd write a liberal lexicon so conservatives could understand what liberals are really saying. They tend to speak in code for some reason rather than just coming out and saying what they really think. Frankly, those few who are upfront and honest have my sincere admiration, although my disdain for their opinions knows no bounds.

So, in an attempt to translate liberalism into something more plain-spoken, here goes nothing...

Christianity: An old superstition based on the idea that a cis-male god impregnated a teenage virgin and allowed his son to be tortured for the greater good. It evolved out of the Jewish religion, but since they weren't the primary victims of Hitler, Christians are fair targets in the culture war. Christian churches (with the exception of the AME and other primarily-black churches) are enemies to diversity as they teach that humans must control their sexual impulses and that humans were designed to function as their bodies indicate rather than as the gender/species they choose. They are also the major perpetrators of Islamophobia worldwide.

Conservatives: Unsophisticated simpletons who believe in things like common sense, the work ethic, individualism, God and other outdated notions. Conservatives seek to return to the days of slavery and strive to return women to being barefoot and pregnant. They wage a war on women and have even brainwashed many women into believing that abortion is murder instead of a sacred right and rite of feminism. The denizens of trailer parks and corporate board rooms, conservatives are either troglodytes or maniacal geniuses bent on world domination for personal profit. (In the case of George W. Bush, both are true simultaneously, an idea solemnized as part of the famous Berkeley Creed. Conservatives can be both brilliant and stone stupid simultaneously; don't ask why because it's a Mystery.)

The Constitution: An impediment to the progress of human rights and equality in general. Also a useful tool for opposing any reasonable effort to protect Americans from the Islamist terrorists, who only seek to exact a richly-deserved vengeance. It is hoped that this document will be made irrelevant by enlightened Supreme Court justices who will ignore it in favor of the legal precedents set by such great nations as Cuba, Venezuela, and France. The Constitution was written by Evil White Men who included a three-fifths clause seeking to empower slave owners and demean Black Americans. For this alone it should be run through a paper shredder, mashed into pulp, and recycled as toilet paper.

Education: A right every child has, to be passively transferred by teachers who have been stripped of the right to discipline students. Discipline is cruel. Not subject to sociological forces, every student is willing to cooperate so long as teachers are able to discern his or her particular learning style. Thus, teachers are obligated to create an individualized lesson for every student every day and teach all of the lessons simultaneously. Effective teachers will have no problem doing this. Education serves to enforce the important and universal societal values of diversity, tolerance, acceptance of alternative lifestyle choices, the ability to comprehend and respect Islam, disdain for traditional American religions such as Christianity, and equality of outcome. No consequences will exist for students who do not meet course standards, since consequences such as retention are demeaning. Teachers will bear the sole responsibility for student outcomes, regardless of whether the students entered class with the prerequisite skills or made any effort toward learning anything. If this formula fails to work, more money is needed and a larger state bureaucracy should be created.

Evil White Man: Any straight male of primarily European descent who did not vote for Barack Obama. The sacrament of voting for The Obama absolves white men of guilt for the original sins of racism, sexism, and homophobia. Seriously religious Evil White Men are especially dangerous as they may be carrying guns and/or Bibles, both of which are dangerous weapons. Evil White Men are the cause of all the world's evil.

Europe: A mixed bag. On the one hand, it is where communism emerged and government largess is most rampant, both of which are pleasing qualities to liberals. Fornication has replaced marriage in much of modern Europe, and the birth rate is too low to maintain the population. This keeps evil humans from killing Mother Earth. On the other hand, Europe is where Evil White Men come from and was the historic stronghold of Christianity. Modern Europe disdains this past, however, and has redeemed itself. Plus, the Evil White Men are failing to reproduce and the population is being replaced with Muslims. This is good because most Muslims are not pasty Evil White Men and do not practice Christianity.

Health care: A natural right of man, inalienable, granted by Nature (as liberals have no God). This involves the right to drain resources from those who have labored to procure them and divert them to those who have not for the preservation of the unproductive. Ostensibly, the first government health care plan was enacted when early humans went to a village elder who smeared feces on a wound to prevent infection. Liberal health care plans will be at least slightly more effective, but vastly more expensive. However, money is no object unless you get to a certain age, at which time you will be counseled to accept a quick death so as to avoid being a burden.

Marxism: The optimal state of human affairs, not to be referred to in public by political figures. A replacement for Deity in the liberal world, The Communist Manifesto being the book of holy scripture. Every liberal must read this book and highlight pertinent passages. Rules for Radicals is only a commentary on the Manifesto, but is required reading as well. Private property is a social evil that implies that some human beings are superior to others in intellect, ability and effort. If, in fact, such differences do exist they should be suppressed at all costs.

Normal: An adjective used to describe a narrow, cisgendered and sexually-repressed subsection of the population who spend all their time watching television, gardening and playing cards with their couple friends. They tend to have more than two children per couple, and thus are contributing to the global population explosion and thus Armageddon due to climate change. They also tend to live in suburban areas to avoid exposure to more interesting and diverse kinds of people.

Reagan: The liberal equivalent of Satan, Reagan brought about the downfall of the beloved Soviet Union and dashed (or delayed) liberal hopes of a communistic one-world government. Reagan is to be reviled alongside figures such as George W. Bush and Glenn Beck. The reverence held toward Reagan in the United States is proof of American mental inferiority.

Talk Radio: Where Evil White Men exchange ignorant ideas such as self-reliance, private property, The Constitution, and sexual responsibility. At times they even stoop to using the word "slut" to describe promiscuous women who are just exercising their right to engage in non-reproductive reproductive activity. Talk radio is where the insidious concepts of financial responsibility and freedom of religion (even for Christians) are spread among the unsuspecting and ignorant populace. Talk radio must be suppressed or eliminated since it inhibits the creation of a more refined, revisionist interpretation of history and current events. The exception to this rule is National Public Radio, which is funded by government and thus easily controlled.

United States of America: The evil empire, produced by the unholy union of slavery and patriarchal rule. Redeemable only by and through a conversion to liberalism, Americans must be made to see the shame in their heritage and accept the error of their capitalistic ways. It is hoped that the enlightened people of the Third World will eventually overturn the national pride of the American people and counsel them to accept milder cultural norms, like public beheadings of women who speak to men in public. Patriotism is the trite and pathetic expression of a primitive tribal impulse.

This list is far from comprehensive. Feel free to add new vocabulary and definitions in the Comments section.

The news media treated the "Mayday" demonstrations as the resurgence of a major political movement. In reality, it was an excuse for a few hippies and hippie-wannabes to imitate the good old days of smoking dope in public and destroying private property. The numbers were pathetic, which is encouraging from a conservative point of view. When you can't get more than a couple of hundred extreme liberals together in New York City for a cause, the cause is dead.

Here in lovely Fort Wayne, Indiana we had a small Occupy camp out in one of the public parks a while ago. It was largely an excuse for the homeless to squat somewhere on the pretense of exercising their First Amendment rights. There were perhaps a total of five tents set up downtown (maybe a few more the first few days of the protest). Nobody paid much attention except for a local businessman who co-opted the movement as part of his job search efforts. He ran a billboard ad that read, "Occupy a job!" After that phrase, of course, he listed the details of how to apply. He even set up a dome tent under the sign to make his point perfectly clear. The ad apparently worked, as he had quite a few applicants.

As for the original, real protesters, they largely consisted of unemployed college graduates frustrated by the lousy job market. Somehow they blame conservatives (who resisted corporate bailouts) and ally themselves with Obama, who called them "stimulus plans" and insisted they'd revive the economy. Corporations got more from the coffers of government under Obama and a Democrat-controlled Congress than they would have from any Republican regime, but somehow get a free pass on the issue. However, this is typical for how liberals feel about President Obama. His rhetoric rarely matches his actions, and he is never called out on it. He can bail out G.E. and buy G.M., but he will somehow always be portrayed as the hero of the ninety-nine percent.

This is all a sad testament to the state of economic education in our country. If these kids want jobs, they want corporations to make money. Unprofitable corporations fire people, while profitable ones hire. It's simple logic, a logic which has been replaced in colleges by naked Marxism. While we conservatives do not believe it is government's job to interfere with the mechanisms of capitalism, we aren't repulsed by the idea that those who work hard and play it smart will profit by what they do. We want more of that. We want, as Rush Limbaugh likes to say, the pie to get bigger so everyone can have a bigger slice no matter how it is divided. Liberals don't get this, at least the young whiny ones, which is why many of them are unemployed. The connection between effort, perseverance and success is lost on them.

What will taxing corporations to give their wealth away accomplish? More people will be receiving handouts rather than a hand up. That's what the Marxists really want--government dependency. Achieve that and the docile sheeple will follow you anywhere.

As a random aside, why is it that every time I see an Obama bumper sticker I have this instant craving for a Pepsi?

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

I can predict several liberal attacks Romney will have to face in the upcoming election. He has already faced one--the Clinton ad regarding Osama. This one's a no-brainer, folks, and frankly the rest will be easily deflected if Mitt follows the following guidelines.

1. Cliton's Osama ad: The comeback should be, "Isn't it ironic that this attack is being voiced by a man who had Osama gift-wrapped and wouldn't even take him? Had Clinton just accepted the offer from Sudan [see link here], 9-11 would never have happened. To have him questioning my resolve is as ludicrous as it is insulting."

2. The dog "issue": The comeback should be, "From a man who defended allowing newborn babies who survived abortion being left to die alone in a cold room, criticizing my dog's car trip seems a bit trivial."

3. Adoption counseling: (To see how the media is prepping for this line of attack, see link here.) The best response would be, "I find it strange that people who are fine with young women destroying their children in the womb would find fault with counseling a prospective mother to consider the option of adoption. I suppose they would rather see a baby aborted than sent to a loving and mature couple who would raise her as their own." Note that using the pronoun "her" personalizes the child.

4. Romney's faith: Romney should respond, "I think President Obama might want to avoid the whole issue of which churches we both have attended. My church loves America and believes that the Constitution was inspired by God, which is why I will always strive to defend it. I prefer to dwell on the redeeming qualities of our great nation, rather than on her sins. These are values I have learned from my faith, and I'm grateful for them."

5. Romneycare: He should respond, "The great thing about leaving health care policy to the states is that they can experiment and innovate. It's much easier to change a policy that isn't working at the state level. A federal health care policy would become an entitlement, making it much more difficult to eliminate. We know President Obama wants a single-payer system; he's made that statement numerous times in the past. I don't want that for America. Looking back, I should have realized that my plan could be distorted by future administrations, turned into an entitlement. I've learned from the experience. We can't afford to emulate Europe. Neither can Europe, as we are learning, continue its entitlements and remain solvent. A free-market solution would be the best way to improve health care, and I plan to make several changes to allow that to happen." (For Obama's real opinion on health care, click here.)

I'm sure more feints will come up, but they will be easy to counter. Obama can't run on his record, so he will have to go ad hominem. Name calling is all he can do. Such tactics are easy to overcome. I hope someone brings this article to Romney's attention; I'd hate to see him allowing Obama's people to set the agenda. A quick, decisive retort is the best way to deal with this kind of thing.